hurlock

The name Hurlock can mean:-

Found pages about hurlock

Users that searched for hurlock

user #5659427: wawa

Tweets about hurlock

RT @ProfessorZaius: @_Hurlock_ @AimlessGromar @RiverC @mr_archenemy Of course. That's what revenue is. If what the government does is of gr…
@ProfessorZaius 1:35 am here, have some articles
@_Hurlock_ You're going to have to prove that the negatives outweigh the positives to make that statement.
@ProfessorZaius no, it's not cool
@_Hurlock_ Ok, cool.
@ProfessorZaius it is still pretty much a plain subsidy
@_Hurlock_ This is why Friedman advocated for a negative income tax. Less perverse incentives.
@ProfessorZaius you are quite literally paying people to fail "oh you failed?; don't worry here are some money for free"
@_Hurlock_ Of course I do. The Democratic Party in its current form would lose every election if that weren't the case.
@ProfessorZaius you do realize that with a welfare system one only works for the GAP between the welfare and the wage he is able to get?
@ProfessorZaius oh and welfare does not lead to incentive problems at all, right?
@_Hurlock_ Yes, in many cases. Most people on welfare are only on it for a limited period of time and are economically productive before>
@ProfessorZaius you do realize that governments, especially democratic ones, have a natural interest in the existence of free riders?
@ProfessorZaius so someone else HAS to support them because? it's for the greater good and all that fuzzy stuff?
@_Hurlock_ unable or unwilling to produce enough to support themselves.
@_Hurlock_ I'd attribute it more to things like profit incentives to defect from defense or environmental protection or to individuals>
RT @endtaxationbot: @_Hurlock_ Taxation is extortion. End it.
@ProfessorZaius you should write a book on this
@ProfessorZaius so, the fact that there are people who are free riders in your world is not a problem of economic coordination?
@_Hurlock_ Taxation is extortion. End it.
@_Hurlock_ In many cases, like national defense or environmental protection, it absolutely does.
@ProfessorZaius but apparently I guess in your view government taxation somehow evades THE problem?
@ProfessorZaius so there is at the very least A problem with government taxation as you just admitted
@_Hurlock_ if you trust Wikipedia is obviously not the case.
@_Hurlock_ Yes, that is the definition of free rider. Nothing to do with whether I made up the definition of the free rider problem, which>
@ProfessorZaius ah, we are playing with words now, ok
@_Hurlock_ "A" problem. "The" problem is effects on economic coordination.
@ProfessorZaius you should try communism
@_Hurlock_ "may be considered as a free rider problem when it leads to under-provision of goods or services"
@ProfessorZaius if the existence of someone who benefits from resources without paying a proportional cost is not a problem for you
@ProfessorZaius I am pretty sure you just made this definition up
@_Hurlock_ The existence of free riders isn't the free rider problem. The problem is the threat they pose to coordination.
@ProfessorZaius you are making my point instead of me, lol
@ProfessorZaius or is it that you get taxed but someone else gains more from it? what was that about the free rider problem?
@_Hurlock_ Among certain libertarians, yes. But for most people on any political spectrum from Plato to Obama and Putin, no.
@_Hurlock_ @KalishJantzen @Outsideness That first paragraph = neoreaction. It's reverse progressivism.
@ProfessorZaius isn't that the official story?
@_Hurlock_ Because income taxes are easy and relatively non-distortionary.
@_Hurlock_ to what they pay.
@_Hurlock_ You're demanding that states should subscribe to a theory of taxation that demands that everyone should benefit in proportion>
@ProfessorZaius then why do they tax on an individual basis?
@_Hurlock_ I don't think that's the actual ruling ideology of any state. They usually justify existence on nationalist grounds.
@ProfessorZaius if it wasn't making a contract with separate individuals it would demand payments from groups
@_Hurlock_ defend people and not property. Does he think there would be no demand for protection of property?
@ProfessorZaius so it is making an implicit contract with every single individual that is taxed: "give us money and we keep you safe"
@_Hurlock_ You've linked me to this before and it's highly unconvincing. In the second paragraph Jim says that private defense firms will>
@ProfessorZaius protection for everyone*
@ProfessorZaius supposedly what government does is provide protection from everyone by demanding payment from everyone
@ProfessorZaius no, it is a purely economic one, how do you keep conflating the two is beyond me
@ProfessorZaius heh

Back to all keywords . ,